Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Imran Hussain

3rd reading
Friday 24th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Imran Hussain]

The hon. Gentleman’s constituency is known for the things he has said. He will appreciate there is a huge difference between shift working and zero-hours contracts. Those are two very different concepts, and I do not think anybody is arguing against shift working. Equally, nobody is saying there should be no flexibility. I accept that in a minority of situations—perhaps, for example, in the case of students, as was mentioned earlier—there may need to be that flexibility.

To answer the question from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan)—I will cover this later as well—the reality is that over the past decade we have gone from around 150,000 people on zero-hours contracts to more than 1 million, as the Minister will know. To suggest that the majority of those people somehow benefit from some flexibility in zero-hours contracts—or some of the points that the Minister may outline later—is just not true.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

The hon. Gentleman suggests that it is not true that a majority of people like that relationship, but surveys show that some 64% of people do not want more hours. He would ban zero-hours contracts, even though 64% of people want them. Where is the sense in that?

[Imran Hussain]

I will refer the Minister to another survey. By far the most over-represented groups of people on zero-hours contracts are women and those from ethnic minority backgrounds. The Minister quotes statistics, but in the current market people who have a choice between zero-hours contracts or no work at all are a different case altogether.

Carer's Leave Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Imran Hussain

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife on this important Bill and on making an excellent contribution. As I said not too long ago when my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central introduced another important Bill, it is very difficult for private Members’ Bills to get to this stage. Any hon. Member who manages that is worthy of tribute, as I am sure the Committee will agree. I also congratulate other hon. Members who have contributed today, some with their personal experiences, but all making an excellent case. The House is at its best when it comes together, and this is such an important issue.

The Opposition welcome and support the Bill. We welcome the support that it will provide for thousands of unpaid carers across the country. I pay tribute to and thank Carers UK for all its work in this area. As rightly pointed out by the hon. Member for North East Fife and by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, 5 million people are working as carers as well as being in full-time employment; 2.5 million people have been forced out of work because of their caring responsibilities; and more than 2 million people have been forced to reduce their hours. That is clearly an unacceptable situation.

For far too long, unpaid carers have had to rely on the goodwill of their employers or have had to take annual leave to fulfil their caring responsibilities. It is therefore right that this wrong is being addressed in the Bill. However, we lament that it has taken so long for such a Bill to appear before Parliament, given that the Government have promised to legislate on the matter for a number of years. As has been mentioned, they set out an intention for such legislation in their 2017 manifesto and again in their 2019 manifesto. It has taken five years —and only by their supporting a Back-Bench MP’s private Member’s Bill—for legislation finally to get to the Floor of the House. That should not be the case; it should have been a Government measure as part of a much broader employment Bill, which the Government have promised on a number of occasions, but it remains in a place of “in due course”, which we never see.

I am disappointed that the Bill seeks to legislate only to create a statutory right to unpaid carer’s leave, not paid carer’s leave, as Labour’s new deal for working people would do and for which we will legislate under the next Labour Government. I absolutely recognise, however, the restraint of the hon. Member for North East Fife in drafting the Bill, knowing that it must have strong support from the Government even to progress to this stage, much less to be introduced and entered on to the statute book. It has therefore been necessary to draft a Bill with a smaller scope to ensure that it is not blocked by Ministers. That is in no way to suggest that this is not a huge step in the right direction.

This is very much an enabling Bill, which will require further regulations to enact the relevant laws to benefit carers. I urge the Minister to give a timescale for and certainty about implementing such regulations. We support the Bill and we hope to see it return to the House on Report and Third Reading as soon as possible.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley.

I thank my several predecessors who have done a lot of work on this, including my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough in her time looking after the legislation. Most of all, I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife for her work on the Bill and for her explanation to the Committee of the various clauses and schedules. It was interesting to listen to her comments—reflected by those of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport—about the fact that most people providing care, such as her husband, do not even recognise themselves as carers. Reflecting on that, we have all—or people of my age might have—been in situations where we have provided care and support on an informal basis at times. There are armies of people out there doing a wonderful job for their relatives and their dependants, with lots of other benefits for society as a result.

There were some excellent contributions from Members on both sides of the Committee. Lots of people in our constituencies are in need of such support, so it is hugely important that this piece of legislation has been introduced.

Improving carer’s leave through the Bill will mean that unpaid carers who are balancing caring alongside paid employment will have greater flexibility to take time out of work if required. On Second Reading, Members on both sides of the House, some of whom are serving on this Committee, related their personal experiences of caring. I thank them all for sharing their personal stories in heartfelt contributions. The Government recognise the important contribution made by unpaid carers and the considerable challenges they face in balancing work with their caring responsibilities. I am pleased to be here today to reiterate that the Government fully support the Bill.

Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Imran Hussain

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I welcome the Minister to his place. He was not present on Second Reading, but I think we all pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central, who introduced the Bill. We all know how difficult it is to get a private Member’s Bill to this stage. A number of seasoned veterans are present who probably know that, having failed on many occasions. It is a tribute to my hon. Friend. I also pay tribute to former Ministers and all those who have got us to this stage, including the hon. Member for Loughborough and others present in Committee.

A lot has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central, and I will not simply repeat what he said. Those of us who were present for Second Reading know that we had a strong debate in which the House was at its best. We showed cross-party support for this extremely important Bill.

Pregnant women and new parents face some appalling discrimination in the workplace, and it is right that my hon. Friend’s Bill addresses some of that. The fact is, however, the Government said six years ago that the discrimination and poor treatment faced by pregnant women and mothers at work was “clearly unacceptable”. My hon. Friend is right to point to the report that sets out the fact that, shockingly, even today up to 4,000 women risk losing their employment. That should concern not just those in this House but everyone. Frankly, more should have been done sooner.

As we go through the clauses of the Bill, we must remember that it extends no additional protections to working parents; the real work is to be done in the regulations mandated by the Bill. To that end, as I pressed the Government on Second Reading, I urge the Minister to commit to those regulations being introduced as soon as possible. The urgent necessity of that is not lost on anyone here today, and I refer to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central. I urge the Minister to guarantee that we see something by the end of the financial year at the latest.

As the Minister knows, the same protections that the Bill and its regulations will afford to working people were promised in Labour’s new deal for working people. In the spirit of the cross-party support for the Bill, we are therefore happy to work with the Minister in developing the regulations to ensure that the protections of the Bill are as strong as possible.

I also want to make it clear, however, that we will not tolerate a watering down of existing protections through those regulations. Earlier this week, we heard that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions had previously stated that the Government should “seriously consider” how the rights of parents to take time off after having a baby could be reversed. He also claimed that the rules on leave for new mothers and fathers were too “onerous”. I therefore ask the Minister to commit to not making any amendments to the Bill before Report that would water down those protections.

As I told the Minister on Second Reading, and as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central, there are rightly concerns about the qualifying period, which potentially discriminates against those who have to cut their parental leave short for a number of reasons. We know that as soon as someone takes even the first six weeks, 10% of their original pay is cut. In the current climate, tragically, people will be forced through no choice of their own to return to work. Therefore, someone not taking that full six weeks will automatically be barred from the protections afforded by the Bill. I urge the Minister to look at that important point when drawing up the regulations.

The Bill also makes no mention of employment tribunals, where responsibility for enforcing the rights in the Bill and the regulations will fall. As I set out on Second Reading, our employment tribunal system has been stretched to breaking point, with the case backlog reaching 0.5 million and working people forced to wait up to two years for justice. Before the Minister introduces the regulations as mandated by the Bill, will he commit to working with his colleagues at the Ministry of Justice to set out a plan for tackling that backlog, so that the protections in the Bill afforded to working parents will be enforceable and worth more than the paper that they are written on?

Ultimately, we will of course support the Bill. Once again, I pay tribute to the extraordinary work undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central, who has delivered a Bill that the whole House can get behind. Like many thousands of new parents, I look forward to seeing the Bill make its way to the statute book.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central for all his work on this important piece of legislation. I also thank the officials who have worked hard on it, as well as my predecessors, including my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough, who did a fine job in this role.

The Bill will bring important added redundancy protection for pregnant women and new parents on their return to work. The measures will provide important support for parents during an exciting but challenging time—pregnancy and the first period of their child’s life—as they juggle work and caring responsibilities. At that time, a little more security can be valuable. It is depressing to hear the statistics that the hon. Member for Member for Barnsley Central cited about people being discriminated against because of those circumstances, but it is important to recognise that the Bill will provide statutory best practice that most employers will follow. Only a minority of employers treat their employees in the way that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but it is nevertheless important to tighten the rules to ensure that they do not.

On Second Reading, Members on both sides of the House spoke about the extent of pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and about their determination to address it. Indeed, Second Reading offered the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central a fruitful recruiting ground for Committee members, and it is good to see a number of those who spoke supporting these important measures in Committee. I was greatly heartened by the extent of the consensus and common cause on Second Reading. I was unable to attend Second Reading, but the Radio 4 “Today” programme on Saturday morning described it as practically a five-hour group hug—in stark contrast with what was happening more widely in Parliament—so I really wish I had been there.

I have heard the calls to go further, but for now at least, the measures mark a sensible next step in our efforts to tackle this issue, and I am keen to press on with them as quickly as possible. I absolutely agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford East, about implementing the measures as quickly as possible, but I want to make sure that we get them right, and we are working with the Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination Advisory Board and consulting other stakeholders to ensure that we do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is a very interesting point. What my right hon. Friend is seeking to do is formalise good practice. I am sure my officials have heard what he has said and will think about it when it comes to forming these specific regulations.

Alongside maternity leave, those who receive adoption leave and shared parental leave will benefit from the same additional protections where appropriate. As I have said, we are working with the Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination Advisory Board in advance of settling on the precise details of the regulations. There are some important questions to consider. We want to make absolutely sure we get the legislation right.

The hon. Member for Barnsley Central referred to the issue of the six-week qualification period. We want to avoid a situation where after 12 months someone who has taken a few weeks of shared parental leave receives the same redundancy protection as a mother who has just returned from 12 months of maternity leave. That is what we are trying to get right.

[Imran Hussain]

I accept to a degree the point that we have to have safeguards in place, but does the Minister agree that those matters can be dealt with through the advisory board?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is incredibly important to get this right, as we said. The key thing is to consult widely with stakeholders. That is what we are doing, and we have done so with the hon. Member for Barnsley Central, who is promoting the Bill. A final decision will be made as quickly as possible.

On employment tribunals, there are clearly problems across the system, primarily due to the pandemic. All these cases need to be accelerated. It is not acceptable that people are having to wait for justice. I absolutely understand the calls to improve the system. We are working hard to do that. The hon. Member for Bradford East made a point about a potential weakening or watering down of employment regulations. I do not see any appetite on this side of the political fence, or indeed his side, to do that. I think it is highly unlikely that that would be something that Government Members would support.

The Government continue to support the measures in the Bill, which would provide valuable support and protection for parents during some of the most challenging and exciting days of their lives. Supporting this Bill is in line with our ongoing commitment to support workers and build a high-skilled, high-productivity and high-wage economy. I was greatly heartened to hear many contributors on Second Reading making the economic case to keep new parents in the workplace. I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central to support the Bill during its passage through the House.

Draft Trade Union (Levy Payable to the Certification Officer) Regulations 2022 Draft Trade Union (Power of the Certification Officer to impose Financial Penalties) Regulations 2022

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Imran Hussain

Tuesday 25th January 2022 General Committees

[Imran Hussain]

Certainly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s first point—that unions do a fantastic job—but unfortunately I do not agree with the rest. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not saying this, but one could interpret from what he said that somehow, if the Government were to pay an independent regulator, they could tell that regulator what to do. We know that is not the case—of course it is not.

Again, that is not the issue today. As I said to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, at the heart of this—I will come to this at greater length—are two points. The first is suddenly charging a levy—I know the Minister wants to say that there are other organisations where regulators are paid for in the same way, but unions are not profit-making organisations. It is almost as absurd as saying that charities should pay for the Charities Commission. The argument that the Minister made did not answer any of the questions posed from this side of the Committee, and I hope that he will do so when he sums up.

The first statutory instrument deals with the financial levy that the Government intend to impose on trade unions. That levy would impose unnecessary and disproportionate costs on trade unions, and would take money out of the funds used to fight for better pay terms and conditions. That is the crucial point. Any money that is taken from trade unions cannot be spent on defending their members. It is fine saying that it is 2.5% but, by the way, the overall figure is not capped.

That raises another interesting question: who makes up for the shortfall? If, for example, the certification officer says in two to three years that their costs will run into the millions—this instrument does not stop that; if the Minister disagrees, he can intervene—and we are saying that the cap on unions is 2.5%, who will make up for the shortfall?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I guess the answer in the current situation is the taxpayer. Surely the only question here is: who should pay for the regulator? Should it be the trade unions and their members, or the taxpayer? That is the choice we are making. The Government have no money, so would the hon. Gentleman prefer the taxpayer to fund trade unions, many of whom do not benefit from trade union activity, or should it be the people who benefit from it?

[Imran Hussain]

The current known cost of the certification officer as it stands is about £700,000, which is paid by the taxpayer. There is, however, a principle: trade unions are there. I have just gone through some of the huge achievements of our trade union movement—which I am sure Conservative Members agree with me about—not just in this country but internationally, for workers in some of the poorest and most squalid conditions around the world. Our internationalist trade unions have gone and done that. Now, on the other hand, we are saying that the draft regulations are not for the good of workers. Trade unions help our workforce with their rights and conditions. Therefore, the principle is that of course this should be paid for by the taxpayer.